Blue Ridge Mountains in Winter
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Lindsey Graham. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Lindsey Graham. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, December 29, 2013

GOP Establishment and TEA Party Leaders Agree: Lose Lindsey

Why Lindsey Graham is bad for South Carolina

From The Post and Courier
By Dianne Belsom and Kevin Thomas

The tea party is a political movement, not a political party, and it began as a spontaneous reaction to the overreach of the federal government. Spurred on by Rick Santelli's rant, I (Dianne Belsom) organized a Tax-Day Tea Party Rally in April 2009 in my town of Laurens.

However, it quickly became clear that our movement wasn't so much about taxes as it was about freedom, and it also quickly became clear as to which of our elected representatives were on our side.

Friday, October 10, 2014

John McCain Likes Lindsey Graham for President


John McCain Likes Lindsey Graham for PresidentDo you ever think to yourself, “Boy, Senator Lindsey Graham would make a great president of the United States”?

Maybe not, but John McCain (not surprisingly) has.

According to an article published October 5 in the Arizona Republic, the senior senator from Arizona describes himself and Graham (R-S.C.) as “the closest of friends.”

For his part, Graham (shown, right) hasn’t declared his candidacy, but has hinted at it (as everyone does at this stage of the race) and has begun attacking potential rivals for the GOP nod, calling out Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as someone who is “not quite ready” for the Oval Office.

Friday, October 16, 2009

The Seduction of Lindsey Graham


From American Thinker
By Nancy Morgan


According to most conservatives in South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has officially gone over to the dark side. Under the guise of 'bipartisanship,' Graham has signed on to one of the left's most ambitious plans to impose a socialist agenda in America - government control of the formerly free market through implementation of cap-and trade, the 1,400 plus page Waxman-Markey bill approved earlier this year by the House.

The main (scientifically unproven) premise of cap and trade is that the earth is melting and government must step in to save the world. Of course, it will be expensive, but hey, this is Mother Earth we're talking about. And its urgent and essential that the government immediately establish a $700 billion "market" for business to buy and sell "steadily declining number of permits for creating carbon emissions."

In a New York Times Op-Ed Graham co-authored with Sen. John Kerry cutely entitled 'Yes We Can' (get it?) Sen Graham states "..we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security." Huh?

Conservatives disagree. Conservatives, real conservatives, believe the fact based studies based on science that stand in direct opposition to the dire reports issued by bureaucrats at the United Nations and embraced as fact by the left.

Conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation, outlines the additional costs that will be imposed on every American families if cap and trade is enacted. Residential electricity costs will zoom up by 90%, nearly 1.9 million jobs will be lost by 2012 overall, and the economy will lose nearly $10 trillion in gross domestic product by 2035. Just what the economy needs, right?

Lindsey Graham was elected to serve as United States Senator in 2002. He was easily re-elected in 2008, largely due to the support of conservatives. Conservatives like founder and past president of the low country's South Strand Republicans, John Bonsignor. John and his wife campaigned hard for Graham, based on their belief that Graham would govern as a conservative. Meaning, lower taxes and less government.

"Graham is disappointing," states Bonsignor, "He campaigned as a conservative but his record is moderate left." When asked if he would vote for Graham now, Bonsignor stated emphatically, "No," citing Lindsey's support for Sotomayor, his support for TARP funds, and the final straw, his support for cap and trade.

Sen. Graham's own website states, "Graham is known as a leader who never abandons his independence or strays from the conservative reform agenda." This is no longer true.

Graham has been seduced by the left. He has adopted one of their most successful tactics, promising one thing while delivering the quite the opposite. Though it's impossible to know what is in another man's heart, actions always speak louder than words. And Graham's actions clearly show that he has signed on to the leftist agenda. Possibly hoping to earn the coveted 'maverick' label and media kudos formerly enjoyed by his good buddy John McCain. But he is doing his own party no good.

Graham has come to exemplify the growing disconnect between conservatives and the Republican Party. He believes he knows best, and if the people that elected him disagree, he tells them to just "chill out," as he did at a recent townhall meeting in Greenville. The same townhall meeting where one of his constituents called him a traitor.

That townhall received little media attention. What did receive national media coverage was Graham's recent interview where he attacked Glenn Beck, the left's favorite target. "Glenn Beck does not represent the thinking of the Republican Party," Graham stated. How he knows this is a mystery, as he went on to say he never watches the Glenn Beck Show. Go figure.

Graham may be right about one thing: Glenn Beck clearly represents the thinking of conservatives, not the GOP. And Sen. Lindsey Graham is now willingly spouting the talking points of the left and abandoning the conservative principles that got him elected. He has been seduced by the left and his reward is ever more national face time and political influence.

Enjoy the ride, Lindsey. More and more South Carolinians, this author included, are comparing you with our real conservative Senator, Jim DeMint, and you're coming up way short. Keep in mind that we have long memories while the fawning media currently singing your praises have short ones. Your love affair with the left, whether it be seduction or statutory rape, betrays the conservative principles that you claimed to hold. And we don't like it one bit.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com. She lives in South Carolina.


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Lindsey Graham: The Little Metrosexual That Could

Words cannot convey the contempt we have for the senior Senator who refuses to represent South Carolina in the United States Senate; but the following piece comes closer than anything we have read.


By Stuart Schwartz

The fussy, fastidious, and pampered senator from South Carolina just keeps chugging along supremely impressed with the face looking out from the mirror in his posh Senate office and his status as the Beltway insiders' favorite Republican.  "I'm [...] at the front of the line" for Barack Obama on Capitol Hill, he brags to the New York Times, which describes his "delight" in letting "people know" how important he is.  After all, he is Lindsey Graham and he is Washington, nestled among the Beltway's palace courtiers like a flea on a Carolina Dog.  And, in the battle raging for the future and soul of the nation, it is well to remember he is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party in Washington; indeed, he is everything that is wrong with both parties.

He is Lindsey Graham and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy is his role model.  Sure, he admired the Massachusetts liberal's "energy and passion" but it was his "practicality" that most impressed Graham.  Kennedy made sure that Graham got the cover he needed to vote his way while keeping the folks back home happy.  Say one thing in Washington and another for those not as smart and not as "important."  Sure, he is known as a "hypocrite" back home and behind in the polls.  And yes, they say he's in trouble in 2014 when next up for reelection, but -- well, they'll forget about it.  After all, they're in South Carolina and he's in Washington.  He's important, and they're not.  He learned that from Ted Kennedy, master; and now he is Lindsay Graham, grasshopper.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Senator Graham's Words Come Back To Haunt Him: Conley Endorsed by ALIPAC


Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one of the leading national grassroots organizations fighting against Amnesty and for more immigration enforcement, has endorsed South Carolina's Bob Conley for US Senate and intends to launch TV and Radio commercials that highlight Senator Lindsey Graham's offensive comments made in a speech to the National Council of La Raza (NCLR).

"Lindsey Graham has been the Republican with the worst stance on immigration issues in the US Senate," said William Gheen. "Any American who is concerned about illegal immigration should vote against Graham and be offended by his comments. Our TV and radio commercials will allow South Carolinians to hear the speech Graham would rather conceal from them."

In March of 2007, Senator Lindsey Graham made a speech before the National Council of 'La Raza' (English Translation: The Race), where he was receiving an award for his support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform AMNESTY for illegal aliens. In his speech, he called Americans who opposed his legislation "Bigots" and announced that American citizens had no right to govern immigration laws as mandated to their elected representatives in Congress by the US Constitution. Lindsey Graham also praises his leader on immigration issues... Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

The TV and radio ads ALIPAC intends to launch next week will contain the following quotes from Senator Graham, while encouraging voters to visit www.alipac.us to review the entire clip.

"An American is an idea. No group owns being an American. Nobody owns this.... I don't do this much but I want to thank Ted Kennedy (laughter)... We are not going to run people down, we are not going to scapegoat people, we are going to tell the bigots to shut up..."

Bob Conley is being endorsed by ALIPAC because he has promised to oppose Amnesty in any form for illegal aliens and to support more immigration enforcement and border security. Senator Graham has received a deplorable grade of 'D' at betterimmigration.com

"We have a case in South Carolina, where Bob Conley better represents the over 80% of voters who prefer enforcement over amnesty," said Gheen. "Lindsey Graham supports Amnesty over enforcement of our existing immigration laws and his own words are about to come back to haunt him."

ALIPAC is a multi-ethnic national organization, founded on 9/11/2004, with over 25,000 supporters representing all 50 states. The organization appears regularly on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and CBC and is supported by many LEGAL immigrants who favor the reversal of illegal immigration in America through the humane and non racist enforcement of our existing immigration laws. For more information, please visit www.alipac.us

Lindsey Graham's ENTIRE sellout speech to La Raza follows:




Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Bill Connor Announces Campaign Steering Committee for US Senate Race

Bill with his wife Susan and their children Peyton, Brenna, and Will.
There's a strong tide moving in South Carolina to finally end the traitorous Senate career of Lindsey Graham and send in his place Bill Connor, a thoughtful, solid conservative, a Citadel graduate, who has served his country as an Airborne Ranger Infantry officer and Afghanistan combat veteran. Bill currently serves as a Lt. Colonel in the US Army reserves.   A dedicated family man and devout Christian, there will be no question as to whose interests Bill represents.  He will fight for the common-sense, kitchen table, family values of the citizens of South Carolina.

Bill Connor won't be calling his constituents racists because they believe, in this age of terrorism, that the borders of our nation should be secured and our laws on immigration obeyed, unlike Senator Graham who wants to reward law breakers with amnesty.

Bill Connor doesn't believe that government is the solution to all of America's problems; he believes that government is the problem.  In this regard, he won't be calling, as did Lindsey Graham, for the nationalization of US banks, or any other enterprises best left to the private sector.

Bill Connor, unlike Lindsey Graham, will support the Republican Platform, not join with Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats in filibustering against GOP-backed tort reform legislation.

Bill Connor, unlike Lindsey Graham, knows that America's economy is groaning under the weight of excessive taxes and massive regulation.  Unlike Lindsey Graham, he won't be supporting Democrat plans for cap and trade legislation and the massive tax increases that would entail.

Bill Connor will dedicate himself to serving the best interests of his constituents and the security and strategic interests of our country, not Wall Street banksters, as did Senator Graham, when he voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) with its massive debt increases and expansion of the federal government.

Bill Connor has fought to defend the God-given rights and freedoms Americans thought were protected by the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  He surely won't be supporting, as does Senator Graham, the fingerprinting and imposition of ID cards on law-abiding Americans, the establishment of biometric data banks, and the massive spying and data mining being carried out by the NSA and other agencies of the federal government.

Bill Connor reveres and will honor the principles upon which our nation, under God, was founded.  He knows that a radical re-commitment to  the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is essential if American freedoms and greatness are to be restored.  Unlike Senator Graham, he won't be voting to place left-wing extremists on the Supreme Court.

Finally, as a combat veteran, Bill Connor knows that the men and women of the Armed Services should never be put in harms way to carry out any mission that does not directly serve the safety, security, strategic interests and freedom of the American people.  We can no longer afford to play policeman, banker and Santa Claus to the whole world.

For these reasons and so many more, your editor is pleased and honored to serve on Bill Connor's Campaign Steering Committee, which was announced yesterday.  

Bill's election is vital to South Carolina; we can no longer afford to have the conservative votes of  Senator Tim Scott cancelled out by Lindsey Graham, who only pretends to be a conservative every six years.  But this election is also crucial to all Americans who care about righting our ship of state and steering a far different course than that taken by Obama and Graham.  Bill's campaign needs the prayers, financial support and encouragement of all Americans who love and care about our country.  Bill Connor has fought for America his entire adult life.  Now he has undertaken a battle that will determine whether we continue to live in the country bequeathed to us by America's founders -- a land of freedom, faith, hope and opportunity.  Upon this battle depends the future of your children and grandchildren.  Let's ensure that Bill Connor will be fighting for us in the United States Senate.



    

Friday, September 21, 2012

Lindsey Graham Top Target for Club for Growth

By Shawn Drury

At a breakfast meeting today in Washington, D.C., Chris Chocola, President of the influential conservative non-profit Club for Growth named South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham as a top target for the group in 2014 elections.

According to Politico, Chocola said, "Graham has not fared well on our score card. But we’ll see what the race is…There’s interest beyond our group in that race.”

Friday, April 8, 2011

Lindsey Graham’s War on Freedom

By Jack Hunter


When Florida pastor Terry Jones decided to “send a message” to Muslims by burning a Koran last week, it incited outrage and violence throughout the Arab world. American leaders rightly responded by condemning the senseless and dangerous act. Yet in the end, and despite the pastor’s obvious and irresponsible recklessness, Jones used his free speech and political leaders used theirs. Such is the nature of free expression in a free society.

But one politician’s condemnation of Jones contained a suggested remedy far more dangerous to American freedom than burning the Koran. Said Sen. Lindsey Graham on CBS’ Face the Nation:
Yeah, I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.
Certainly the Founding Fathers considered free speech more than just a mere “great idea” but one of the bedrock principles of our republic, even enshrining it in the first amendment to our Constitution. That Graham would be willing to capitulate to radical Islamists by curtailing this precious freedom is particularly astounding when you consider that the Senator consistently and adamantly opposes curtailing the one policy that unquestionably “inspires the enemy” more than any other. In fact, when it comes to looking out for America’s proper defense and actual security—Lindsey Graham is arguably the most ass-backward politician alive today.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Lindsey Graham Supporter Mike Huckabee Defends Phil Robertson and is "Interested" in a 2016 Presidential Run


According to a story in The Christian Post, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has defended "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson, while also revealing that he is considering another run for the presidency in 2016.

It is good that Governor Huckabee is not bowed by an intolerant, anti-Christian agenda and speech code.  We also respect Governor Huckabee's right to speak out on behalf of any candidates that he chooses to endorse.  However, despite our past support for Governor Huckabee, we will not be supporting him in the future because he has foolishly and unnecessarily chosen to intervene in the South Carolina GOP Primary for the United States Senate.  Huckabee is currently featured in radio spots being run throughout South Carolina touting the "conservative" Lindsey Graham (a symptom of Graham's multiple personality disorder that manifests itself every six years).

As we have said many times, Lindsey Graham does not represent the people of South Carolina; he has been a far better ally of Barack Hussein Obama.  His votes on major issues routinely cancel-out the votes of South Carolina's conservative United States Senator, and his ideas about America's role in the world, our Constitution and its defense of God-given rights are anathema to most Republicans.  He believes in a tyrannical, big, interventionist government and has played a key role in transforming a conservative Supreme Court into one that has upheld Obamacare.

At least four conservatives will challenge Lindsey Graham in next year's GOP primary.  We  think Bill Connor is the very best of these choices, but any one of them would be far superior to Lindsey Graham.  In fact, we expect a runoff and seriously doubt that Lindsey Graham will be in that runoff.

Mike Huckabee has shown disregard for the political future of our state and country and contempt for the conservative movement with his endorsement of Lindsey Graham.

Riding the wave of a national backlash over the persecution of Phil Robertson is too little, too late, Governor.  We know Lindsey Graham very well here in South Carolina; it is you, Governor, we apparently misjudged.


 

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Schumer and Graham: Partners in Amnesty

Senator Lindsey Graham "reaching across the aisle" to Senator Charles Schumer

With reports that the worst Republican Senator is teaming up with New York Senator Charles Schumer on a new amnesty bill for illegal immigrants, we have only one question about Lindsey Graham: "who is blackmailing him?"  As the following story indicates, Grahamnesty has destroyed himself in the eyes of South Carolina Republican primary voters.

South Carolina should amend its constitution to allow for recall of the scoundrel canceling out Senator Jim DeMint's votes; fortunately there are many distinguished prospects for his seat in 2014 -- Henry McMaster, Joe Wilson, Bill Connor, among others.  We will enthusiastically support the Republican who has the best chance of defeating him.

PPP Poll: Lindsey Graham Trails Joe Wilson In Possible 2014 Senate Primary
From TPM
By Eric Kleefeld
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has both bad-mouthed and praised the Tea Party movement in the past, isn't up for re-election until 2014. But when that comes, a new survey from Public Policy Polling (D) finds that Graham could be quite vulnerable in his Republican primary -- against Congressman Joe "You Lie" Wilson!

The poll finds that only 42% of the state's Republican primary voters approve of Graham's performance, with 40% disapproving. And in a hypothetical primary against Wilson, who famously shouted out "You lie!" during a speech on health care by President Obama to Congress, it doesn't look good for Graham: Wilson gets 43% of the votes, and Graham gets 41%. The margin of error ±4.1%.

"Lindsey Graham should thank God his next race is not until 2014," writes PPP president Dean Debnam. "He'd be in good shape in November, but at this rate, he'd be lucky to survive that far."

On the other hand, Graham does lead former Gov. Mark Sanford by a margin of 52%-34%. Unfortunately for Sanford, while he might have a lot of experience campaigning in Buenos Aires and on the Appalachian Trail, those voters likely aren't eligible to participate in South Carolina elections.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Lindsey Graham: Portrait Of A Principled Idiot

From ArticlesBase
By J. J. Jackson

I really did not want to write a second article in a one month about Senator Lindsey Graham considering he is from South Carolina and I am from Pennsylvania. But I must. He is forcing my hand.

I have got to hand it to the Senator. He certainly is principled. Sitting in his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham decided to vote in favor of moving the nomination of Elena Kagan, President Obama's latest nominee to the United States Supreme Court

, out of committee. Senator Graham says that elections have consequences and this is why he crossed over and voted with the Democrats. Thus, in his mind, he is saying that because President Obama is sitting in the White House The President should get his nominee.

But while being principled he is also an idiot. He is an idiot because he is ignoring the fact that he was also elected. And he was elected by a constituency that vehemently opposes another left wing radical being placed upon the Supreme Court. His excuse to vote for Kagan is nothing more than the ramblings of an ill mind that is looking for justification to do something he wants to do anyway. Because if he really believed what he said about the consequences of elections he would be telling Obama that his constituents elected him to stand in the way of the further leftward march of America.

But he is not doing this because he does not really believe in his own excuse.

Senator Graham even said that there were, "100 reasons," for him to vote against this nominee. But he tosses those, "100 reasons," out the window because he wants to further Kagan's nomination and get her seated upon the Supreme Court. There is, to be blunt, no other reason for his action. Most people would say if there is one reason for something with 100 reasons against doing that thing that the 100 reasons would outweigh the one and the action in question would not be taken. Not Senator Graham though.

Yes Mr. Graham, elections do have consequences. You, for example, were elected to the United States Senate. The United States Senate is tasked with the role of advice and consent over the President's judicial nominees. That role was given to the Senate to ensure that a President would not appoint unqualified persons to the bench. The scope of who these unqualified persons are ranges widely from a President's own relatives with no judicial experience to someone who is mentally incompetent to a wacko who could not care less about the United States Constitution, upholding limited government and keeping the Congress and the President in check.

The election of Senator Graham to a role in the Senate where he is supposed to act as a check and a balance is apparently not a consequential event if we are to believe the Senator's own words and compare them with his actions. To Senator Graham the only election that matters in this case is the election of President Obama. To me this seems very convenient for the Senator and very inconvenient for America. Does this now mean that Lindsey Graham will support any law in Congress that President Obama supports? After all, elections have consequences right Senator?

Saying you are being principled is one thing. But getting tied up in knots so as to only selectively apply the principles you claim to hold dear makes you a principled idiot. What Mr. Graham is showing is that even a fool can have the courage of his wrongly conceived convictions.

He is the truth. And it is a truth that needs to be impressed upon Senator Graham.

Elena Kagan was nominated by President Obama because he sees her as someone that will help further his goals. President Obama's goals are to strip us further of our liberties, act in an extra constitutional manner and turn America into a land where top down government

control is the norm of our existence. I know, I know, liberals protest at such a blunt portrayal of what they believe in. They will swear that such is not the case. But tell me honestly, has anything that they have done proven that my description is not accurate? No.

Ms. Kagan, once on the bench, will rule, repeatedly and often, to further these desires. And when she does, each and every time she does, there will be people clearly responsible for these rulings. First and foremost will be Ms. Kagan herself. Next on the list will be President Obama. Following him will be all the goofy Democrats in the Senate who would not know the Constitution if it was put in front of them with a big neon flashing sign saying, "Constitution," and who will rubber stamped this nomination. But behind all these sorry souls will be none other than Senator Lindsey Graham. Behind Mr. Graham will be any other Republican that votes to confirm her in the full Senate such as Susan Collins and Dick Lugar who have both voiced support for this horrid candidate for the nation's highest court.

And because of your role in this matter Mr. Graham, you will be just as responsible for the destruction of this country as all the rest who were previously named. But you are too interested in being a principled idiot to care.



Saturday, September 21, 2013

Another County GOP Organization Censures Lindsey Graham


The Fairfield County Republican Party last night voted 82% to 18% to censure Senator Lindsey Graham for "his repeated comments and votes against our party platform."  In the following message, Fairfield County Republican Chairman Kevin Thomas urges fellow Republicans statewide "to bring this resolution to censure Senator Graham to your county party and endorse one of his opponents, a candidate more like Senator DeMint and less like Senator Graham." 
SCGOP Members,
I hate having to write this email but my convictions make me feel obligated to do so.  Last night the Fairfield County Republican Party, at a regular monthly meeting, voted 82% for and 18% against censuring  U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham for his repeated comments and votes against our party platform.
I know some of you are supporters of Senator Graham and others of you feel that censures are a waste of time.  I once was a supporter of Senator Grahams, but when he time after time strays from our party platform, we felt that we must show our displeasure with his actions.  Earlier this year, I met with Senator Graham’s staff in Greenville and requested that he meet with the Fairfield County Republican Party.  After numerous follow ups I almost gave up.  At the end of the summer as I began to schedule Senator Graham’s primary opponents to speak to the FCGOP, I again requested Senator Graham to speak to our party.  I was told that my request would be sent to his scheduler.  After I attended a telephone town hall in which every phone call was an “I love Lindsey” caller, I felt frustrated and unable to communicate my displeasure with our Senator.  I have communicated my displeasure of Senator Graham to his staff but wanted to communicate it to him in person as did many of our members.  When Senator Graham finally began to have a few town halls/public meetings, they were either too far from Fairfield County, announced last minute or allowed only a few connected people to attend.  I and the members of the FCGOP were discouraged with Senator Graham’s failure to be accountable to his voters, so we took the only action we felt we could to let the Senator know that we were unhappy with his repeated disregard for his constituents.
As I have discussed this issue with several of you, the question has come up; can we endorse someone other than the incumbent in the Republican Party?  I spoke with SCGOP Chairman Matt Moore and he said unless county party rules prohibit it, yes we can endorse in a primary.  Chairman Moore was fair and by the books when we discussed this issue.  As you may recall in the Presidential Preference Primary many of you elected to endorse a candidate.  Although you can make a valid point that endorsements are worthless, they are a way to publicly show your support for a candidate and for candidates to gain a little momentum.
I am a conservative before a Republican and I encourage each and every one of you to bring this resolution to censure Senator Graham to your county party and endorse one of his opponents, a candidate more like Senator DeMint and less like Senator Graham.
Respectfully,
Kevin S Thomas
Chairman
Fairfield County Republican Party


Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Conley Charges Sen. Graham With Setting The Stage For Crisis


Democratic challenger Bob Conley, running for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat, is strongly opposed to the kind of meddling in financial markets that is supported by Lindsey Graham and which is responsible for today’s economic crisis.

“The current economic crisis is a direct consequence of the flawed legislation Lindsey Graham voted for while serving in the House of Representatives,” said Conley. “Lindsey Graham has hurt South Carolina and the Nation beyond measure.”

Graham voted in 1999 for the euphemistically-named Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which repealed the common-sense restrictions on the financial sector imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

This repeal of Glass-Steagall set up the current crisis by allowing Wall Street firms to integrate banking, insurance and brokerage services under the same roof, with virtually no regulatory oversight.

“Lifting Glass-Steagall restrictions launched a new era of irrational risk-taking, led to dangerous financial practices, and allowed the perilous consolidation of the financial sector into too few hands,” said Conley. “This centralization of financial power now threatens to destabilize our economy and further sink our once vibrant Middle Class into a hole from which they may never climb out.”

Lindsey Graham’s vote in 1999 had the following impact on South Carolina and the Nation:
· Feverish speculation caused the so-called “dot.com” crash that wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002. At the time, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan called this “irrational exuberance”.

· Lax regulatory oversight set up, accelerated and perpetuated sub-prime mortgage loans and their bundling into prime investments that promised high returns – an unsustainable proposition by any common-sense measure.

· The results: $29 billion to bail out Bear Stearns; $85 billion for 80 percent of AIG to nationalize it; $150 billion in a stimulus package to flood the nation with cash; $250 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and now $700 billion to save the national economy from the excesses of Wall Street. All this with no guarantee of success!
After helping to lead our Nation into a financial crisis of such devastating magnitude, Lindsey Graham no longer can claim to have the knowledge, insight and hands-on experience to continue representing South Carolinians in the U.S. Senate.

In financial terms, it is time for the voters of South Carolina to withdraw Lindsey Graham from the U.S. Senate and deposit Bob Conley as their sound investment in the future.


Thursday, February 28, 2013

Who Does Lindsey Graham Represent?

NumbersUSA Airs Radio and TV Ads Against Amnesty Proponent Lindsey Graham 



Call Lindsey Graham and ask him who he represents:  (864) 250-1417


Supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants has earned South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham the opposition of NumbersUSA , a border security group that began a statewide radio ad campaign against Senator Graham on Tuesday, saying television ads would follow today.

Sen. Lindsey GrahamGraham, is a member of the Senate “gang of eight,” a bipartisan group pushing for a comprehensive immigration “reform” bill that includes a “path to citizenship” or amnesty for those who came to this country illegally.

According to NewsMax, although Graham is the first member of the “gang of eight” to be targeted, NumbersUSA says it plans to run negative ads about the other seven members of the group: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

NumbersUSA, which believes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants would only draw more illegal immigrants to the U.S., plans to spend $150,000 on its anti-Graham ad campaign, says NewsMax.



Friday, June 28, 2013

Lindsey Graham Paved the Way for Supreme Court Ruling

Richard Cash says Graham Should be held Accountable for Supreme Court ruling on Marriage

Elena Kagan with Lindsey Graham, her only Republican supporter on the Judiciary Committee.

Anderson, SC - Once again, activist judges on the Supreme Court have undermined our political process by striking down part of the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996. By a 5-4 decision the justices ruled that benefits for married federal employees must be extended to same-sex couples in states that allow same-sex marriage, invalidating the section of DOMA which defined marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman for federal purposes.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Graham to Commend Obama for Drone Murders

Lindsey Graham and Barack Hussein Obama - Blood Brothers, War Criminals
 As in so many areas of policy, when it comes to indiscriminate, remote control killing from 30,000 feet - even the murder of women and children - Obama and Lindsey Graham see eye-to-eye.  

Graham thinks only liberals and libertarians oppose America acting as an international executioner.  But we've never been accused of being either. Call us old fashioned, but some conservatives cling to old ideas, such as observing the United States Constitution and Congress actually declaring war before sending troops or drones out to kill anyone.

From Politico
By Ginger Gibson

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will offer a resolution next week commending President Barack Obama’s use of drones and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

“Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.

“I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added.

The newest discussions about drones and al-Awlaki comes after the White House sent a memo to members of Congress explaining the reasoning behind their killing of an American citizen who was working for Al Qaeda.

Graham said the resolution will allow for a debate about who the nation is at war with and what proper action during times of war is.

“The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use,” Graham told reporters on Wednesday.

Graham said judges should not be the ones to decide individual cases of enemy combatants and the courts would uphold the president’s ability to decide.

“If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama’s first term and the beginning of his second term is the way he’s been able to use drones against terrorists,” Graham said.


Friday, May 16, 2008

The Worst Republican Senator

From The American Spectator
By Quin Hillyer

South Carolina's Lindsey Graham is a flop. He pretends to be a conservative, but sells out conservatives and insults them while doing so. He pretends to be effective at reaching across party lines, but the only thing he effectively does is help the other party. He inhabits the Senate seat of Strom Thurmond, legendary for great attention to his South Carolina constituents, but Graham spends most of his time trailing behind John McCain like a valet as McCain criss-crosses the country in pursuit of the presidency. He called Ted Kennedy "one of the most principled men I've ever met." In sum, in the words of conservative movement stalwart Richard Viguerie, "Lindsey Graham is part of the problem.

"What, for example, could possibly have possessed Graham, in April of 2006, to write an essay for Time magazine about the virtues of Hillary Clinton? He called her "a smart, prepared, serious senator." She is "sought out by her colleagues to form legislative partnerships." She has managed to "build unusual political alliances with...conservatives.

"He praises liberals, but reserves particular venom for conservatives who disagree with him. The most infamous example came at a speech to the utterly radical Hispanic group La Raza -- it was bad enough that he spoke to them, much less what he said -- when he described what he would do to opponents of the awful immigration proposal he helped Ted Kennedy craft: "We're going to tell the bigots to shut up." The idea that only a bigot could oppose the Kennedy amnesty plan was a recurring theme with Graham: On This Week, he told George Stephanopoulos that opponents were like those in earlier years who put up signs that said "No Catholics, no Jews, no Irish need apply."

MEANWHILE, GRAHAM deserves every bit of abuse conservatives can heap on him for his record on judicial nominees, which swings back and forth between pathetically ineffective and absolutely counterproductive. Of his leading role in the "Gang of 14," which saved the Democrats' unprecedented option of filibustering President Bush's nominees, Graham clearly thought his gesture of goodwill would win him some chits with Democrats. Think again. Right now his home circuit, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, suffers from the most serious official "judicial emergency" in the country, with only 10 of the 15 seats filled.

Again and again, Graham has stood by helplessly, without seeming to lift a finger in public protest, as Fourth Circuit nominees have been hung out to dry -- except for the time (more on this later) when he himself was the enthusiastic hangman. Even though he sits on the Judiciary Committee, he cannot even secure a hearing for his home-state nominee, the superbly qualified, Reagan Administration veteran Steve Matthews, who has been waiting for eight solid months. On the other hand, more aggressive Republicans on the committee have had far more success: For instance, John Cornyn of Texas has effectively shepherded Texans Jennifer Elrod and Catherina Hayes to confirmation since the Democrats re-took the Senate majority -- and without once sucking up to the Democrats to do it.

In a conference call with conservative bloggers and reporters a few weeks back, Graham defended the Gang thusly: "It was about a process. It was about whether we were going to change the rules to get a simple majority vote to get approval for the bench. If you change the rules, you weaken the Senate." But he had it backwards. It was the Democrats who had thrown out the understanding of the rules that had applied for 214 years, an understanding that it was exactly a "simple majority" that was all that was necessary for confirmation. It was to restore the proper understanding of the rules that Republican leaders threatened the "constitutional option" against Democratic filibusters -- and it was Graham who saved the day for the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Gang at least was supposed to make it somewhat easier to confirm judges by ruling out filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances." It didn't work. Before the Gang, when there were just 51 Republican senators, the Senate approved 19 of 31 appeals court nominees. After the Gang, even with a larger bloc of 55 Republicans in the Senate, the confirmation rate was actually lower: just 16 out of 28. What's worse, other than the three nominees immediately approved through the Gang's deal, the few other post-Gang nominees who were approved tended to be less solidly conservative than the ones approved in the previous Congress.

And, of course, once the Democrats re-took a the majority, none of the Gang's supposed goodwill did any good: So far this Congress the Senate has confirmed just seven appellate nominees, and just one this year -- again, without Graham making much of a peep about it.

GRAHAM'S WORST ACTIONS on this front, though, came when he led the fight against South Carolina native Jim Haynes for a Fourth Circuit spot, supposedly because Haynes advocated "torture" at Guantanamo Bay. That issue has been well covered here, here, and here. In just the past month, though, new releases of Justice Department documents show conclusively that the impetus for the enhanced "stress positions" at Guantanamo came from Justice, and in stronger fashion even than had previously been known, to Haynes; and fair consideration of those memos make it all the more clear that Haynes' subsequent actions to make the interrogation methods more lenient should have earned him Graham's praise, not his calumny.

Less well known than Graham's apostasies against conservatism on judges and immigration was his horrendous performance when President Bush was pushing personal accounts for Social Security. After putting himself forward as Bush's point man in the Senate, he failed to make any headway -- and then it became obvious why: Graham never really cared about personal accounts to begin with. "We've now got this huge fight over a sideshow," Graham told Washington Post reporters and editors. "It's always been a sideshow, but we sold it as the main event." Added Graham: "we're off in a ditch over a sideshow." He said this in March of 2005, directly undercutting Bush while Bush was still just getting fully geared up to fight the good fight for this crucial conservative reform. By the end of that month, he was pushing his own plan for what the Post called "significant tax increases" to make Social Security solvent.

Graham also has an absolutely terrible record on tort reform, not just voting against GOP-backed reforms but actually joining filibusters against them. As class-action plaintiffs' attorneys terrorize businesses and doctors with spurious lawsuits seeking jackpot justice, Lindsey Graham roots them on.

On family issues, the conservative Eagle Forum gave him just a 44% rating in 2006. That same year he did terribly by the lights of the English First, which explains itself thusly: "Our goals are simple: Make English America's official language. Give every child the chance to learn English. Eliminate costly and ineffective multilingual policies." Graham received just a 25% rating from the group.

"Graham doesn't seem to have any conservative vision," Viguerie said. "He doesn't seem to walk with conservatives. I'm not aware of any movement conservatives on his staff."

But for South Carolina's senior senator, who needs conservatives when getting in the good graces of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy is so much fun?


Quin Hillyer is an associate editor at the Washington Examiner and a senior editor of The American Spectator. He can be reached at qhillyer@gmail.com.


Monday, September 17, 2012

Lindsey Graham Endorses Hollywood Democrat for Congress

Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint working at cross-purposes.

While South Carolina's esteemed junior Senator, Jim DeMint, has a national reputation for ensuring more conservatives are elected to the United States Congress; the state's rogue senior Senator has been busy too.  In characteristic fashion, Lindsey Graham, joined by his comrade John McCain, has endorsed Hollywood Democrat Howard Berman for Congress.  

Senator Graham will face, please God, a difficult primary challenge in 2014.  

We hope Senator Graham's Hollywood friends, the national media,  and all those liberals who support his calling his constituents "racists," those who support Graham's proposed amnesty for illegal aliens, the nationalization of US banks, massive new taxes under cap and trade legislation, Graham's proposed fingerprinting and imposition of ID cards for law-abiding Americans, and all those who delighted in Graham providing the key committee vote ensuring the appointment of Marxists to the US Supreme Court, will return the favor and endorse Graham in his primary.  In fact, just for a short time in 2014, y'all should come to South Carolina and let us know just how much Senator Graham means to you. 



Wednesday, September 4, 2013

The “Lesser Evils” I Will Not Vote For


Here's a reflection by Chuck Baldwin with which we heartily agree.  We were lectured by some in 2012 that Mitt Romney was the "lesser of two evils."  I wonder how many of those who disagreed with our refusal to support the 2012 GOP presidential nominee voted for Lindsey Graham in 2008.  That race pitted Bob Conley, running as a Democrat who has never in his life voted for a Democrat and is as conservative as Pat Buchanan, against the treasonous Graham.  We were told by some they would not vote for a "Democrat," so they voted for evil when they could have replaced him with a true, small government, Constitution-loving, freedom promoting conservative.  Conley would not have provided the key committee votes clearing the way for the appointments of Kagan and Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.  So how has your commitment to party over principle worked out for you?

 By Chuck Baldwin

After then-Congressman Joe Scarborough convinced me to endorse the neocon Bob Dole for President back in 1996, I vowed to myself that I would  never vote for “the lesser of two evils” again. I haven’t; and I won’t.

Almost anytime one hears someone talking about voting for the lesser of two evils, it always means voting for a Republican instead of a third party or independent candidate. The argument is always the same: he or she (the third party candidate) cannot win. Therefore, voting for someone you presume cannot win is “wasting” your vote. I used to believe that, too, but no more.

One could even make the argument that voting for an unprincipled neocon Republican is actually voting for the greater evil, not the lesser. It seems we lose far more liberties under Republican administrations than under Democrat ones. That does not mean that Democrat presidents care more for the Constitution and limited government than Republican presidents. It simply means when Republicans occupy the White House, rank and file conservatives and freedomists go fast asleep. I mean deep sleep. I mean extended hibernation. The two administrations of G.W. Bush are prime examples.

In terms of foreign policy and the burgeoning police state at home, there is no distinguishable difference between Bush and Barack Obama. None! Except for the fact that with a Democrat in office, conservatives, Christians, and freedomists are much more alert and quick to oppose the administration’s draconian policies, whereas, with a Republican in office, those same people sit back and totally ignore identical policies. Yes, sometimes voting for a Democrat might be voting for the lesser of two evils.

I personally witnessed an election in which a vote for the Republican was not just a vote for the lesser of two evils; it was a vote for a politically evil candidate over a politically righteous candidate. I use the words “evil” and “righteous,” not in the true spiritual sense, of course, but in the overall political result of the two candidate’s positions on the issues.

I’m talking about the US Senate race in South Carolina in 2008. The Republican candidate was the pro-war, pro-police state, pro-big government, anti-Constitution incumbent Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham is the personification of everything that is wrong with Washington, D.C. Mind you, Graham is a US Senator from South Carolina. There are probably more evangelical Christians, more Christian schools, and more Christian influence per capita and per square mile in South Carolina than in any State in the country. Bar none! And Lindsey Graham is the best that South Carolina can send to Washington, D.C.? Egad!

In 2008, I was running for POTUS as the Constitution Party candidate. I spent some quality time in South Carolina during that campaign. I had previously spent time in the Palmetto State campaigning for Congressman Ron Paul. What I’m saying is I spent quite a bit of time in South Carolina that year.

While I was in South Carolina, I was introduced to the US Senate Democrat candidate Bob Conley. I spent much time getting to know Bob. I could not find one issue over which he and I disagreed. Bob was as straight as a gun barrel politically speaking. He was an awesome candidate. So, while I was in South Carolina, I was happy to publicly endorse Bob for that US Senate seat. In that race, a vote for the Republican candidate was to vote for the only “evil” candidate in the race. Yet, conservatives and Christians by the tens of thousands cast their vote for Graham simply because he was a Republican. You see, voting for the “lesser of two evils” does not apply to anything except voting for a Republican.

Read more at Chuck Baldwin Live >>


Thursday, February 26, 2009

No One Trusts John McCain's Shoe Shine Boy



It would seem from the comments reported in the following column that Lindsey Graham's Democrat colleagues don't know him very well. They are suspicious that he might harbor some ulterior motives in advocating nationalization of the banks and socialism for the American economy. We wish he had some conservative instincts and loyalty to Republican principles, hidden or otherwise. Haven't they noticed that he's John McCain's shoe shine boy?


What is Lindsey Graham Up To?

From The New Republic
By Noam Scheiber

You may recall that Lindsey Graham has been strongly intimating we should nationalize our banks. Not only that, but he says several other Republican senators are open to it.

So why won't Democrats, many of whom feel the same way, at least discuss it with him? Obviously one issue is the enormous complexity, which everyone would like to avoid. But the bigger hold-up is that Democrats just don't trust Graham. The same senior Senate aide I spoke with yesterday told me, "I think they’re betting on failure. I don’t know what his angle is. I’m hesitant to give him credit given my severe loathing for the guy."

Then today, another senior Democratic source elaborated, suggesting Democrats think Graham's nationalization comments are designed to talk down the banks' stock, making it impossible (as opposed to just extremely difficult) to attract private capital and making nationalization more likely. That is, the fear is that Graham wants to force the Democrats' hands. “These people say ‘free markets,’ ‘leave everything alone,’ ‘let them fail,’” says the source. “Now all of a sudden they’re saying ‘nationalize the banks?'” The cynicism is just incredible.”

For what it's worth, I'm personally torn. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Graham and the Republican caucus. But he did sound genuinely exercised about the situation when he spoke to the Financial Times last week. (Graham’s office didn't return a call seeking comment.) And even Democratic senators like Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer have inadvertently talked the markets down with comments about nationalization.